Marriage Equality

Robert Oscar Lopez: Gay Marriage Is A 'Tidal Wave That Swept Up Children'

In a speech to the Stanford Anscombe Society last month, anti-gay activist Robert Oscar Lopez explained that he would support marriage equality…if it didn’t come with protections for children raised by same-sex parents.

“I supported marriage for a long time,” Lopez said, “but the problem is that the people who have supported gay marriage have chosen to yoke gay marriage and gay parenting together.”

“That put me in the horrible situation where I have to oppose gay marriage, because it ultimately means that in order to protect the sexual relationship between two adults, you have to shatter the relationship between a child and either his father or his mother,” he continued.

“A lot of the people who I might have disagreed with ten years ago, who kept on warning that gay marriage was a portal to new things, unfortunately those people were right and gay marriage became this tidal wave that then swept up children,” he said.

Mat Staver: Refusing To Oppose Gay Marriage Like Keeping Silent About The Holocaust

Mat Staver, the head of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law, criticized Republican politicians who have been largely mum as a string of federal court rulings have knocked down bans same-sex marriage, including one affecting Liberty University’s home state of Virginia.

He likened such politicians, and those who support marriage equality, to those who were silent in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. Staver told Radio America host Greg Corombos yesterday that officials who don’t speak out against marriage equality will be harshly judged:

I think from the political right, the Republicans and so forth, those that are Republican elected officials state and federal, those who remain silent will ultimately be held accountable just as much as Democrats who advocate to the contrary. This is not an issue in which you can remain silent any more than you can remain silent during Nazi Germany. That was a moral issue, it was not defined by geography, there was a moral imperative there of the dignity of the human being, you can’t remain silent there and expect no consequences. Nor can you remain silent or advocate to the contrary with regards to the undermining of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Predicting that the Supreme Court would eventually take up the case, he said a ruling in favor of marriage equality would be just as invalid as a court striking down the laws of gravity.

“In world history, even when you look at the Greeks and how promiscuous they were, you only have fourteen years outside of the United States and ten years in the United States with this dangerous experiment, so I think no matter what the courts do, you can’t change what is reality, objectively so, male and female,” he added.

Cathie Adams: People Are Fleeing Marriage Equality States

Cathie Adams of the Texas Eagle Forum suggested last week that people are leaving states like Massachusetts for Texas as a result of their different marriage laws, and advised gay Texans and their supporters to simply leave the state.

During the Texas Values anti-gay press conference, Adams said that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is a reason for its population growth: “Texas is the fastest growing state in the nation and there is a reason for that, and part of that reason is traditional marriage.”

She continued:

This is good for Texas families. We do not accept the homosexual agenda, that is what we are talking about here. If those who embrace that homosexual agenda want to move to a state that does embrace homosexual marriage, there is a state of Massachusetts that they could move to. But we are finding is that they’re not moving to Massachusetts, what is happening is that Massachusetts is declining in numbers, people are moving out of that state. So why in the world would Texas, that is growing and the fastest growing, want to join Massachusetts, that is declining. People are moving away, they are voting with their feet, out of Massachusetts. Yet, there are liberals who are trying to influence all of us in places like Hollywood and San Francisco. They want to change Texas.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly has similarly claimed that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.”

Charles Flowers: Gays 'Seek Special Rights' To 'Persecute' Conservatives

The Religious Right group Texas Values announced its support last week for Texas’ appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Pastor Charles Flowers, who vigorously opposed an anti-discrimination ordinance in San Antonio, joined Jonathan Saenz and other conservative activists to support the appeal and denounce what he called the “HLGC” community: “homosexual, lesbian and gender confused.”

Flowers said that the ban should be upheld as constitutional “because it is Texas law” and “because it is based on the notion that those who choose to practice a certain lifestyle cannot change and yet the preponderance of the evidence refutes that claim.”

In fact, he positioned himself as a spokesman for civil rights activists and proclaimed “a divorce between the Civil Rights Movement and the HLGC agenda citing irreconcilable differences.”

Later, he warned that gays “seek special rights and a protected opportunity to punish and persecute anyone not in agreement with their lifestyle choice.”

Janet Porter: Boycott Target For Its 'Corruption Of Marriage'

Not only is Janet Porter calling on conservatives to ditch Facebook and join her non-operational website ReaganBook, she is now pushing the Religious Right boycott of Target after the company announced its support for marriage equality.

“Target takes aim at natural marriage,” Porter said today in her daily radio commentary. “They are using your hard-earned shopping dollars to stand for counterfeit marriage.”

“I called Target to let them know I won’t be shopping there anymore until they reverse their policy on the corruption of marriage, and you can too…. Stand for marriage by boycotting Target.”

Jim Garlow: Same-Sex Marriages 'Violate' California Law 'Every Single Day'

California Religious Right leader Jim Garlow helped spearhead the campaign to pass Proposition 8, and doesn’t seem to be giving up on his effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state even after the anti-gay amendment was overturned by federal courts.

While speaking to Bryan Fischer yesterday, Garlow insisted that every same-sex marriage — or as he calls it, “so-called gay marriage” — is still a violation of the law.

He said that Proposition 8 “still appears in the [state] Constitution, though it is being violated every single day” by gay couples getting legally married in the state.

Staver: Same-Sex Marriage Not A Right Because Homosexuality Used To Be A Crime

On a recent episode of Liberty Counsel’s “Faith and Freedom” radio program, Mat Staver argued that marriage equality can’t be a fundamental right because it’s not “deeply rooted in our history that you have to protect it,” and in fact “homosexuality has always been considered a crime against nature” and “something that’s been criminalized in our culture.”

A fundamental right in constitutional law has to either be specifically articulated in an enumeration of the Constitution — so a fundamental right would be freedom of speech, freedom of religion, so it’s part of the First Amendment, it’s actually absolutely articulated — and if it’s not articulated, the court has said it has to be deeply rooted in our history such that if you were to not protect it, it would literally unravel the concept of ordered liberty that is so essential to who we are and it is so deeply rooted in our history that you have to protect it. Parental rights can be something that falls within a category such as that.

Now, here, obviously, the issue is, did same-sex marriage become a fundamental right? And the answer clearly is no. If they really were honest, it’s no. And to the contrary, same-sex marriage or homosexuality has always been considered a crime against nature. Instead of protection deeply rooted, it’s been something that’s been criminalized in our culture, not just in America but around the world.

Later in the program Staver discussed the recent appeals court decision striking down Virginia’s marriage equality ban with Liberty University Law School’s Rena Lindevaldsen. Lindevaldsen argued that because the court acknowledged that people in same-sex relationships sometimes raise children from opposite-sex relationships that it undermined the argument that being gay is a fundamental characteristic. “Now they’re saying, by the way, we can have relationships with whoever we want to and we still get this right to marriage,” she lamented.

North Carolina Religious Right Leader Blasts 'Despotism' And 'Tyranny' Of Pro-Equality Court Rulings

Last month, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he would no longer defend the state’s marriage equality ban  because "there are really no arguments left to be made." 

This did not sit well with Mark Creech, executive director of the North Carolina Action League. In a Christian Post column yesterday, Creech attacked Cooper for “wimpishly” capitulating to “tyranny” and yielding to the “despotism” of “judicial totalitarians.”

By refusing to resist with every legal means possible, Cooper capitulates to a form of tyranny in our day. He abandons his post on the field of battle, throws up the white flag, stands in the very place of the state (a state that voted by 61% for the marriage amendment) and wimpishly replies to the 4th Circuit that North Carolina accepts their judgment and surrenders. Furthermore, he calls on the judges who will preside over the cases currently challenging the state's marriage amendment to stand down and yield to the despotism of two judicial totalitarians.

Hagee: Pro-Choice, Pro-LGBT 'Counterfeit Christians' Are Nation's 'Greatest Problem'

Televangelist John Hagee dedicated his Sunday sermon this week to asking if America can “survive until 2017,” walking through a number of issues that he feared would impede the country’s survival. The chief among these, he said, are “counterfeit Christians” who are pro-choice or support LGBT rights.

“You people who are running around calling yourselves Christians supporting abortion, you are not!” he thundered.

“Our greatest problem in this nation is counterfeit Christianity,” he explained later in the sermon, telling gay-affirming pastors, “Those of you who got on national television and endorsed homosexual lifestyle because the president did so, you are a counterfeit Christian, you are a moral coward, you are a hireling shepherd. Shame on you.”

Hagee also warned that the separation of church and state “will prove suicidal for America.”
 

David Barton Repeats Debunked Claim That Chaplains Are Forced To Perform Same-Sex Weddings

Last year, after the Supreme Court struck down the federal component of the Defense of Marriage Act, David Barton claimed that the ruling would force military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages against their will.

That fear, of course, was completely unfounded and the Pentagon clarified that DOMA repeal would in no way mean that a military chaplain would have to perform a marriage against his will.

But Barton is still claiming that military chaplains are being forced to officiate same-sex weddings that violate their religious beliefs, saying on his “Wallbuilders Live” program today that military commanders are ordering chaplains to “perform homosexual weddings.”

Ben Carson: LGBT-Affirming Pastors Put Their Finger In The Eye Of God

Conservative activist and potential GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson joined James Dobson on Family Talk Radio yesterday, where the two got to talking about LGBT-affirming pastors.

Dobson, joining a long line of anti-LGBT activists who don’t quite understand what bisexuality is, asked what pastors who endorse marriage equality are going to do about bisexual people, who he said “have sex with males and females at the same time.”

“That’s called orgies, that’s what it used to be called” he said.

Carson, for his part, despaired that pastors who approve of same-sex marriage have given a “finger-in-your-eye to God.”

Carson: I find it difficult sometimes to understand why ministers are willing to abandon the scripture to go along and get along. I just find that very puzzling.

Dobson: I do too, especially on the issue of gay marriage. There are many, many formerly conservative big-time ministers — I mean those who have big churches and great influence — who have abandoned that.

Carson: They’ve been beaten into submission.

Dobson: If they’re right to do this today, were they wrong yesterday?

Carson: The bigger issue is, of course, if you can say the Bible is wrong on that, then, you know, why isn’t it wrong on everything, or anything that you don’t want it to say?

Dobson: I have been on a crusade to say to many ministers, and I’ll say it again now, that if men can marry and if the things that are said about same-sex relationships and marriage and the Bible are misunderstandings, what do you do with the rest of LGBT? What do you do with bisexuality? If one of those is right and proper and holy, what about those who have sex with males and females at the same time? That’s called orgies, that’s what it used to be called, or just sleeping around with everybody and it doesn’t matter. How can a Christian minister who reads the Bible condone that?

Carson: Well, you know, my emphasis is that marriage is an institution established by God himself. And when you look in the New Testament, the marriage relationship is used to help us understand His relationship with His people. So when you start distorting that, you’re really going pretty deep into the finger-in-your-eye to God. That’s why I have a hard time understanding why ministers are willing to do that.

Rick Santorum Angry That Marriage Equality Supporters 'Devalued' Marriage

While speaking over the weekend on “Eagle Forum Live,” Rick Santorum said that conservatives need to “reclaim” marriage from the left and “the folks who are trying to change the marriage laws to allow same-sex couples.”

The former senator and presidential candidate told host Anne Cori, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter, that supporters of marriage equality have “devalued marriage” and “divorced marriage from any meaning beyond a romantic relationship,” while Cori lamented the “celebration of single mothers.”

He also warned of polygamy: “If marriage is simply a romantic relationship between two people, and by the way, that’s what it’s devolved to the minds of a lot of Americans, if that’s all that marriage is well then it’s hard to make the argument that any two people or any three or four people shouldn’t be able to get married.”

Appeals Court Strikes Down Marriage Ban in Virginia, Ruling Will Also Affect Carolinas and West Virginia

Today the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Virginia’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples.

This is a historic step forward for equality in the South. Beyond Virginia, the ruling will also affect the other states covered by the 4th Circuit, including North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia, which have similar bans in place. In West Virginia, the district judge considering the challenge to the state’s ban said last month that he would not proceed until the federal appeals court had ruled.

In the majority opinion, the judges noted that bigotry and fear cannot be the basis for the denial of equal rights under the law:

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws.

…The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

For those who claim that marriage bans are legitimate because they were adopted by popular vote, the court quoted a Supreme Court case from 1964:

A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.

That one sentence perfectly encapsulates why courts matter.
 

PFAW Foundation

Heritage Foundation Fellow Trots Out Radical Nullification Argument Against Marriage Equality

The anti-marriage-equality movement seems to have anointed Ryan T. Anderson as its next intellectual leader. Anderson, who is now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, follows in the footsteps of his mentor Robert P. George and National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher in being able to talk about the marriage issue without spewing fire and brimstone or talking about how gay people make them want to vomit .

This kinder, gentler approach has endeared Anderson and his predecessors to a movement that’s trying to snatch its image away from the likes of Bryan Fischer and Pat Robertson.

But it also can obscure the fact that Anderson’s supposedly intellectual arguments against marriage equality can still be far out of the mainstream.

On Friday, Heritage promoted on its website a video clip of Anderson speaking at a Stanford University event, where he was asked by an attendee why he, as a gay man, should not be able to file a joint tax return if he gets legally married in California.

Anderson responded that legally married same-sex couples should not have access to all the trappings of legal marriage, because while in some states they can “be issued a marriage license,” they “can’t actually get married” because marriage is inherently a union of a man and a woman.

This is basically a nullificationist argument against benefits for legally married same-sex couples. Like those who argue that gun laws or health care reform aren’t actually law because they violate their impression of what the Constitution says, Anderson is saying that even legal, state-sanctioned marriages don’t count because they violate his view of what marriage is, and therefore should not earn legal, state-sanctioned benefits.

Far from trying to brush over this nullificationist argument against marriage equality, Heritage is actively promoting the video to its followers.

The full clip is four minutes long, but the fun really starts at about the 2:10 mark.

Anderson: The reason that you should not have the option of filing a joint tax return is that you can’t get married, given what marriage is.

Questioner: But I could in California, I can get married.

Anderson: You can be issued a marriage license in the state of California, but you can’t actually get married. And I’m sorry to say it that way, but given what marriage is, a union of sexually complementary…

Questioner: How is that not discrimination?

Anderson: And it’s not discrimination, because everyone is equally eligible for entering into the marital relationship, where you understand marriage as a union of sexually complementary spouses, a permanent, exclusive union of man and a woman, husband and wife, mother and father. If you’re not interested in entering into that sort of a union, you’re not being discriminated against.

What you’re asking us to do is to redefine marriage to include the adult relationship of your choice. And the adult relationship of your choice happens to be a same-sex couple. There are other adults who want to have marriage redefined to include the relationship of their choice, which may be the same-sex throuple or the opposite-sex quartet. So what I’m asking you in response is, what principle are you appealing to when you say this is discrimination to vindicate your rights but not their rights? Because it seems to me that your position ultimately leaves to simply the dissolvement of the marital union.

It’s not that you don’t have a right to get married, it’s that you aren’t seeking out marriage. Marriage is by nature a union of sexually complementary spouses, a union of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. And based on just what you’ve said about yourself, it doesn’t sound like you’re interested in forming that sort of a union. It sounds like you’re interested in forming a union with another man, and that’s not a marriage. So that’s why I don’t think the law should treat the relationship that you want to form as a marriage.

Phyllis Schlafly Proud The GOP Has Not Been 'Swept Along In The Gay Tide'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is boasting of the Republican Party’s opposition to gay rights, which she says is proof that marriage equality is not “the wave of the future.”

On her Wednesday radio bulletin, Schlafly claimed that the Republican National Committee didn’t select Las Vegas to host its convention as “punishment” for the state party’s decision to drop anti-gay, anti-choice language from its platform. She added that she is optimistic that the party will recruit and elect “candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.”

If you get your news from the mainstream media, you may believe that the adoption of gay marriage is the wave of the future, that its momentum is so strong that it is unbeatable. But not so fast. That may not be true at all. All this so-called momentum is created by supremacist judges who are trying to impose their left-wing bias even on states where the voters have passed a referendum putting only traditional husband-wife marriage into their state constitution. Unfortunately, we are stuck with some supremacist judges who claim we have a "living" Constitution and pretend that they can rewrite our laws and even our Constitution. This marriage issue will probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court in about a year, and we don't know how the Court will rule.

Let's first look at the so-called momentum to abolish marriage as we have known it for centuries and what the public opinion polls tell us. A new poll by Wilson Research Strategies surveyed Republicans and Republican-leading Independents and found that 82% agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between "one man and one woman." It also found that 75% disagreed that "politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

The Republican National Platform adopted in Tampa in 2012 says: “We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

After Nevada Republicans dropped traditional marriage from their state platform, the Republican Party promptly punished Nevada by rejecting Las Vegas as a site for the 2016 Republican National Convention. It is unfortunate if marriage becomes a political issue between Republicans and Democrats, but it does look as if politics is going that way. We are looking for candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.

Eagle Forum: Government Is Constitutionally Required To Fight 'Homosexual Conduct'

Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, the head of the group’s Court Watch Project, today makes the novel argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of LGBT people but in fact requires the government to fight “homosexual conduct” in “every legitimate way possible.”

In an article published on Eagle Forum’s website, Armstrong argues that advances in LGBT equality prove “that America is indeed in the ‘danger zone’ and is in dire need of a massive ‘straightening up process.’”

She then argues that the AIDS epidemic shows that “homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required, to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible.”

All emphasis is Armstrong’s:

Has America bent over so far backwards in our spiritual, moral, and constitutional life that we are in danger of “breaking”? This question is central to our current series of Court Watch Briefings. The question has been precipitated by America’s Culture War and echoes the anguished cry of the Father in the famous musical production, “Fiddler on the Roof,” who felt that revolutionary changes in his world were pushing him to the “breaking point.”

We are proving that America is indeed in the “danger zone” and is in dire need of a massive “straightening up process.” Nothing more clearly demonstrates this fact than the recentsame-sex marriage decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court - Perry v. Hollingsworth and Windsor v. U.S.

These statistics bring into bolder relief than ever the fatal flaws of Perry/Windsor . HIV and AIDS is a pandemic , far worse than other such health threats which have sent governments and media around the world into a veritable apoplexy, accompanied by demands for the most severe action possible to stem those threats. Yet, federal (and, now, state) judges are demanding constitutional protections for the conduct which is most responsible for the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Furthermore, Judge Vaughn Walker’s “Finding of Fact” that religious opposition to homosexual conduct “harms gays and lesbians” and is constitutionally protected is so incongruent with reality as to be laughable, if it were possible to laugh about such an adjudicative disaster. The reality, of course, is that the exact opposite is true –homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required , to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible. This example alone illustrates how upside down is Walker’s blast that “harm to homosexuals” results from religious opposition. This falsehood converts a particularly pernicious value judgment into an adjudicative fact given great weight in pro-homosexual court decisions. One of the worst blows to reason, morality, and the Judeo-Christian worldview is the speed with which the Perry/Windsor poison has poured through America’s legal veins…

Religious Right Group Says 'We've Been Focused Too Much' On Gay Marriage And 'Not Focused Enough On Divorce'

The Ruth Institute's Jennifer Johnson wrote on the organization's blog yesterday that marriage equality advocates who criticize the Religious Right for singling out gay marriage while ignoring straight divorce "have a point."

"Have we been too focused on “same sex marriage” and not focused enough on divorce?" she asks. "I think so."

"Divorce is a big problem that Christians have not confronted adequately," she writes. "Thus, we have lost our witness and moral authority in regards to the institution of marriage. At least, that’s how it looks to me. "

The Ruth Institute — which until last year was affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage — doesn't always conform with the Religious Right's messaging, most recently taking issue with the movement's "whining" persecution rhetoric.​

That's not to say that the rest of the Religious Right doesn't care about divorce — the advent of no-fault divorce is frequently brought up as as a milestone in the slippery slope of the sexual revolution, and "covenant marriage" laws are popular among some activists. (Family Research Council president Tony Perkins sponsored the nation's first covenant marriage law when he was a Louisiana state legislator.)  But the movement as a whole knows that villainizing people who get divorced is going to be a less popular strategy than scapegoating the much smaller LGBT population.

Judge Strikes Colorado Marriage Ban

If you’re having trouble keeping track of the rapidly falling state marriage bans, you’re likely not the only one. In the latest of a dizzying streak of pro-equality decisions, a judge in Colorado struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban yesterday.

District Court Judge C. Scott Crabtree stayed the ruling, which means that same-sex couples in Colorado cannot yet begin to marry.

In his decision, Judge Crabtree plainly noted that the ban “bears no rational relationship to any conceivable government interest.” He also underscored the discrimination faced by same-sex couples in the absence of marriage equality:

‘The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,’ Crabtree said in his ruling.

‘The existence of civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans.’

PFAW Foundation
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious